Haryana

StateCommission

A/599/2017

RAVI GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

FRANK INSTT. OF MEDICAL SCIENCES - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS DEEP

19 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, Panchkula

 

                                                                      First Appeal No.599 of 2017                                                     Date of Institution: 17.05.2017

Date of Decision: 19.03.2019

Sh.Ravi Gupta, S/o Sh.Ram Niwas Gupta, R/o Rohtak Road,Sonepat.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Frank Instt. of Medical Sciences (FIMS), Bahalgarh-Sonepat Road,Sonepat, through its Director/Chairman.

2.      The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay Life Building, N-36, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.

                   …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.                                                Mrs. Manjula, Member

Present:              Shri Vikas Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                             Mr.Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that he approached the opposite party (O.P.) No.1 for treatment and on 05.01.2016, surgical operation was conducted through endoscopy.  He went to Apollo International Hospital Delhi for routine medical check up, it was revealed that a needle was left inside the body of the complainant during surgical operation by Dr.A.K.Mittal.    He was suffering from severe body pain as needle was left inside the body.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      O.P.Nos.1 and 2 filed reply controverting his averments.  O.P.No.1  was insured with Oriental Ins. Co. for the period w.e.f. 17.07.2015 to 16.07.2016.  He was chronic alcoholic.  He was covered under health insurance policy and due to chronic alcoholic, he was not covered under the policy.  He came to hospital of the respondents with massive haematomesis i.e. internal bleeding in the stomach, for which, the therapy of glue landing was done.   The glue injection became solid on contact with blood and sometimes needle sticks to the glue has to be left there and it does not cause any harm and get extruded from the glue lateron on in phases.  As per discharge summary, needle got stuck left inside to be removed lateron.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  O.P.No.3 has taken similar pleas as has been taken by O.P.Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 02.03.2017.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument has been advanced by Mr. Vikas Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Navneet Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr.Pardeep Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      It is not disputed that treating doctor of O.P.No.1 conducted endoscopy surgery on 05.01.2016 Ex.C-5.  However, as per the discharge summary, it has been written by the treating doctor that the piece of the needle had remained inside the body of the patient, which was to be removed at later stage. 

8.      Though, as per the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the patient had also gone to Apollo International Hospital, Delhi for treatment, it is not known as to on what amount has been incurred for his treatment. Whether foreign of the needle has been removed or not, it shows the medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor.  Since, the complainant came to the hospital of the O.ps. with massive haematomesis i.e. internal bleeding in the stomach and for which, the therapy of glue blending was done, which was best and first line therapy for dilated veins in stomach because of liver damage due to chronic alcoholism and the same was done with glue injection.  He has not led any cogent evidence and he has also failed to produce any expert opinion to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

9.      In view of the above observation and discussion, no illegality could be found with the order  dated 02.03.2017 passed by learned District Forum,  Soenpat and as such, the appeal being devoid of merits stands dismissed.

 

March 19th, 2019        Mrs. Manjula       Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                           Addl.Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.